from the do-they-even-know-what-they're-doing? dept

This one is really quite incredible. Among the sponsors of the absolutely dreadful E-PARASITE Act, which imposes massive regulations across the entire internet sector, is Rep. Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee. What's odd is that Rep. Blackburn, just a few months ago, went onto YouTube to emphatically explain why regulating the internet was a terrible idea:

It's a short video, in which Rep. Blackburn says:

You're probably watching me on a high speed internet -- the same internet that has given us our competitive advantage. You know it took years for innovators and investors to create the online experience that you enjoy today. It really is the highway for all the goods and services and jobs that we need for the creative economy. Facebook, YouTube, Twitter. They're right there at your fingertips because of the internet that we enjoy. But some people fear that without government intervention, that entrepreneurs and innovators are going to hijack the internet that you enjoy... the World Wide Web! This has never happened and there has never been a time that a consumer has needed a federal bureaucrat to intervene. But yet this policy, called Net Neutrality is the Obama administrations hysterical reaction to a hypothetical problem. Here's what they want to do: Take the private internet and put it all under government control. Think about it: what's going to happen to the next Facebook innovator, if they have to go apply with the government to get approval to develop a new application. And what would happen to your small business, if you had to depend on internet speeds that Uncle Sam says is going to be okay.... We want to keep [the internet] open free and prosperous.

First of all (and I say this as someone who agrees that the administration stretched its mandate with its net neutrality move), what she describes as net neutrality is not what net neutrality is. That said, what her comments apply much more to is the bill that Blackburn herself co-sponsored, which definitively regulates the internet -- including YouTube, Facebook and Twitter -- by putting a massive burden on them to proactively monitor the internet, to stop infringement.

Amusingly, this very video is on YouTube, via Rep. Blackburn's official account. If this bill that Blackburn is co-sponsoring was in place as law just a few years ago, it's extremely unlikely we would have YouTube still in existence today. That's because a company -- let's just say "Viacom" -- could decide that YouTube was "dedicated to the theft of U.S. property" (under this law -- which includes enabling or facilitating infringement) and could then issue a notice to all payment processors and ad providers, barring YouTube from ever being able to make money. That would have killed YouTube dead. A few years ago. And Blackburn would be stuck.

Instead, Viacom has tried suing, under existing copyright law... and to date the US courts have found that YouTube obeyed the law. And because of that, people like Rep. Blackburn can reach out to her constituents and explain why regulating the internet is bad. But what we can't figure out is, why is she co-sponsoring a bill that actually does massively regulate that same internet?

Re: illiteracy is a problem

Oh no, I think she understands EXACTLY what the bill is about. See I'm beginning to think that she doesn't want you to go to the government to get approval to develop a new application but instead, you must go to the corporate overlords.

See... it's all about creating jobs. Think of all the new positions this will create for the RIAA and MPAA what with the VP's, assistants, general lackeys, etc needed to run whole divisions just to reject new business ideas. It's a goldmine I tell ya!!!

Re: illiteracy is a problem

Either she did not read it or she received money for mafiaa.we will need to look close at each politicians funds to see if and where they received their cash for those traitors who sign our rights away.

to bad no papers are covering this story.no one but us techies seem to know what is about to happen.all done behind the eyes of the common american.This story needs to be covered by the ny times and other major news.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Property rights are at the core of Libertarian values and enforcement of such rights is one of those areas where Libertarians' aversion to government regulation is curiously absent. Truth is Libertarians don't care about freedom so much as they care about freedom for property owners.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Intellectual 'property' is not property in any real sense of the word and it's certainly not property in the libertarian sense of the word.

Libertarian does not mean 'aversion to government regulation.' It's about individual liberty. Property rights are ancillary. In a real libertarian society the amount of property you have would not affect how well your rights, property rights or otherwise, would be enforced. So I don't know which so-called 'libertarians' you've been talking to but they're not really meeting the definition of the word if they value property rights over individual liberty.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Libertarians like to frame the concept of individual liberty in terms of the ownership of the self. From there they extend the concept of liberty to encompass other forms of property, with land being the most significant example. Liberty under Libertarianism therefore depends not only upon the ownership of the self but on the ownership of one's environment. As such, those who own none of their environment have fewer rights than those who do, much like serfs and landlords.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The libertarian belief of labor is one example. Labor is an action. You have to question if the products of that action such as music, movies, etc., require protection as if they're property.

Link I think Kinsella's discussion has it best at the 18 - 20 minute mark. Creation is not sufficient to new property rights. You can work to own a scarcity, but common goods are agreed upon to be given through voluntary contracts for one's self.

I fail to see how libertarians recognize IP laws when they create bureacracies that go against their principles.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Agree. The word libertarians gets thrown out a lot more lately than it used to, and everyone has their own interpretation of it (just in this thread there are already 4). I think you're closest to the traditional meaning, however.

I don't consider myself a full-on libertarian, but I certainly share many viewpoints with them.

Yet, despite all the differing views, anyone who can say with a straight face that a government handout disguised as a law specifically designed to protect a few legacy corporations against innovative start-ups is libertarian is clearly delusional.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Libertarianism is anarchy for rich people.

Certainly the free market has winners and losers. A society should make some effort to help the losers. No one succeeds without the labor of others. So when a company gets sold and a couple people at the top make millions and everyone else loses their job are we just suppose to say oh well they are losers?

We need to provide support to those who lose because one person winning is the result of many people losing. Its anarchy to leave the losers to die and not provide public service to help those less fortunate.

A corporation is suppose to make money no matter what. Even with restrictions these corporations do horrible things that benefit themselves and hurt society. Look at Nestle and the fiasco they caused pushing milk formula in 3rd world countries and then pushing still even after they learned of the effects, look at oil companies constantly ignoring regulation and harming their own workers and the world, (not just the recent oil spill, you can look into the pipeline leak in Alaska caused by a faulty valve that wasn't inspected because the phased out the safety inspector position). If you leave companies to do what they want they will make money by fucking people over, and now those fucked over people just get to die by the roadside because you remove any safety net.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Libertarians don't belive in not helping people out. They just don't think, A)The federal government should use taxpayer money to do it, and B)Anyone should be forced to do it. They're all for private citizens using their own money for charitable causes.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yes but the kindness of random citizens is not enough to replace medicare, social security and unemployment. The system can never make everyone a winner. Lots of people will work hard their whole life and not have enough money saved up to support themselves through retirement. Lots of hardworking people lose their jobs when people "win". Lots of hardworking people have unfortunate events that leave them bankrupt (accident, serious illness ect) and unable to, at least temporarily, improve their position. A society should help these people because their failure is what allows others to win. The winners should have to put aside a part of their winnings to help the less fortunate, its anarchy to say you didn't make it you can fucking die homeless and poor.

No one succeeds in a bubble they shouldn't be able to act like they do.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Lets pretend we live in a Libertarian utopia.

Guy creates a new kind of widget and starts a small factory making these widgets. They are hugely successful and he expands his factory. Now without government regulation he is able to be even more successful by paying his workers low wages and allowing them to work in miserable conditions. Soon he dominates the entire widget market and is personally worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Now even though he is paying his workers a pittance and the factory is an OSHA nightmare he finds that he can make even more money by moving the factory overseas. So he closes up shop and puts hundreds of workers out of the job. Hundreds of workers who were not making enough money to have any real long term savings. These people lose their houses and health and die penniless in the street. Because Guy made millions off of their work and fucked them over in the end, and he wasn't required to give any of his "winnings" back to society to help the people whose backs he broke to "win".

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

That's not libertarianism...

At any time, the people making the widgets could go on to form their own widgets or making a watchit for a price that the market would bear. By all means, the widgit maker could try to stop them, but if he sabotages the company, he's using violence, not exactly a libertarian ideal. The main things you're ignoring is that libertarians advocate a voluntary contract. When the contract is over, so is the deal. This does not stop other competitors, nor does it stop other competitors from offering better conditions, higher wages, or lower priced products.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yes but that is competing with the widget maker. A factory worker is not an inventor or a business leader. Guy dominated the widget market by having a better product at a good price. He had a good price because he was screwing his workers. Even if he wasn't screwing his workers and paid them a decent wage they are still fucked when he sells the company or moves the factory overseas. His personal millions were still made because of the hardwork of others but as soon as they become useless to him they are thrown in the gutter, he walks away and leaves them out in the wind.

Sure you say if conditions are bad and he isn't offering good wages, go work elsewhere. But we have 14 million unemployed currently. With no social safety net can those people be choosy or will they take the job thats offered. Once they get layed off can they hunt around for a good job? No they have to take the next thing thats in front of them, so someone else can profit massively off their work and then leave them high and dry.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

This is getting a little farther from the main point that I'm trying to say. There's always options for various projects, be it digital, tangible or anything else. As I see it, if the widget is physical, then there's ways to try to find investment capital and try something new. The AC's argument is very lopsided because of the scenario presented. It confuses the libertarian belief of less governance with capitalist cronyism, which is to make profit for whatever means.

You're correct that they could use pricing to keep others out of the market, but it would hurt them, possibly causing lower profit margins for themselves. Also, there are companies that could work under a different business structure. I recall a bread making company where the 15-20 employees also own stock in the company, so whatever happens to the employees, it also affects the company. I don't believe the old ways of doing business would greatly affect the marketplace without government competition, I just think the AC is confusing some concepts to try to "dirty" the ideals of libertarianism.

I can't answer every question professed, because if you look at the rules of patent law and copyright law themselves, they greatly limit how people could work. It's costing us jobs and research into new genes, technology, and even new ways to use music and movies, to adapt to what the trade industries want. As I've heard, property rights should only apply to scarce resources. Well, what happens when what was once scarce is no longer so?

So if we think of libertarianism as less governance, it would work that more people would advocate for less copyright as Kinsella does above.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I wouldn't say I am trying to "confusing some concepts to try to "dirty" the ideals of libertarianism." I just see the evils committed by corporations and I don't see how privatizing everything and giving them more power is going to help anyone but those on the top.

You talk about fair competition among corporations but that isn't what I am discussing. I am more concerned about removing social saftey nets and privatising education. I don't think its possible for one person to be a millionaire with out hundreds of people breaking their back for them and ending up poor. For the haves to just be able to say, thanks I am done with you and throw the people whose work made them what they are to the wolves is not a society I want to live in.

I know the people all these companies are mistreating, in my examples, are not American's, but if you remove the regulations that don't allow them to treat American's they could be. Even still its an example of how success is built on the "failure" of others. I could dig harder for examples of companies fucking over American's but frankly these examples all come easier. I don't think its that hard for you to figure out a couple on your own.

To say that the winners don't need to give something back to the people who the step on to climb to the top is just Darwinian. Survival of the richest and most conniving.

To say that when you succeed you owe nothing to the society that helped you succeed is ridiculous to me. No man amasses a fortune with out using others. To say that society can use you up and a bad break, a bad boss, or a bad decision can leave destitute is ridiculous to me.

::Anyway thank you everyone who responded. There are a lot of people in life and even some on this board who I respect that say they support libertarnism. I do truly want to see how they can believe that the world would be better off by removing the protections we have put in place for the working poor and people who fall on hard times. I don't think it would take many generations for a libertarian society to turn in to serfs and nobles. If someone can point me in the direction so I can learn how libertarism prevents an extremely powerful abusive ruling wealthy class I would love to read it.::

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Let me add that I certainly see the logic is less government regulation as far as it pertains to propping up faulty business models or granting monopoly rights. I just don't see it being a wise move to remove the governments ability to support the people who lose when their loss is what allows others to win. I don't see it as just or humane. There are libertarian ideals I can get behind but I think part of the purpose of our government is to look out for the best interest of the little guy (though currently its something our government doesn't do much of) and its one of the things that seperates us from a clan of apes huking shit at a clan of smaller apes. The market won't provide these protections if you remove the governments ability to do so. And it certainly isn't so black and white as those that try succeed and those that fail deserve it.

LONG reply...

" I just see the evils committed by corporations and I don't see how privatizing everything and giving them more power is going to help anyone but those on the top."

The biggest thing on this is how we have defined them as people in the US. Odds are, if we had businesses as money making services that couldn't run to our government for grievances against people, it would allow them to establish safer principles of work or a ton of innovation by always offering new ways of doing business. In other places, this makes no sense.

Further I would express caution. Saying that corporations would be "evil" under our current cronyist government might not work under a libertarian way of business.

" I don't think its possible for one person to be a millionaire with out hundreds of people breaking their back for them and ending up poor."

It actually is. Have you heard of the CEO of Costco?. He treats his employees well and makes a comfortable living.

Even Andrew Carnegie made his money by treating others around him quite well. I don't necessarily agree with all of his practices, but naming a railway after a supervisor made sure to keep his employees happy. The point is, you can be a millionaire without breaking everyone under you. I would argue that the richest people usually bring a lot of people up in their ride to the top. Hell, look at Warren Buffett. I'm sure that he has a close knit number of friends that he continues to enjoy time with.

For the haves to just be able to say, thanks I am done with you and throw the people whose work made them what they are to the wolves is not a society I want to live in.

Again, I would state that's not a society without its problems as the OWS movement seems to make us aware. No one is against income growth unless it was gained through illicit or scrupulous means. If the financial meltdown showed anything, it's the fact that the US has to restructure how businesses work as well as the relationship of the government to its people and businesses. It can't pick the winners and losers. That's what the market is supposed to decide.

I just don't see how easing regulation is going to make these companies better citizens. These companies are successful, at least in part, because they treat other people horribly.

But what happens if the regulation is usurped by those that are supposed to be regulated? Hence, my belief that there has to be something other than regulation to curb unethical behavior. Hell, look up Tim Geithner and how he orchestrated the economic meltdown and the bailouts. Why do both political parties in power love him? Because he gave tons of money to all banks with no strings attached. By no means would a Libertarian want that type of deal to occur.

Even still its an example of how success is built on the "failure" of others. I could dig harder for examples of companies fucking over American's but frankly these examples all come easier. I don't think its that hard for you to figure out a couple on your own.

No question. Some of the largest companies live to screw over others in the pursuit of profit. But that's because the playing field is beyond uneven. Think about copyright and how it favors large corporations. They can bring about large suits against others and through statutory damages, destroy a single person's life. If copyright weren't there to regulate the market, the market would route around the damage. Judging how people don't like the copyright laws now, that's exactly what's happening. The MPAA and RIAA are trying to control the internet, but there WILL be a lot of opposition to this act. It tries to felonize Justin Bieber and you know his fans are some of the most rabid. It destroys platforms of expression just because they exist.

To say that society can use you up and a bad break, a bad boss, or a bad decision can leave destitute is ridiculous to me.

But I think this ignores all of the actors that make it without screwing over people such as Jim Senegal (CEO of Costco). I wouldn't look at just the financial district or even Walmart without factoring in the people that keep a low profile, treat their employees well and make a conscious effort to maintain a good relationship with the people that work for them. It's like saying Gabe Newell is evil for figuring out how to make money with Steam. Yes, he's successful and he gives back in a number of ways. He does this without needing a government to regulate it.

I do truly want to see how they can believe that the world would be better off by removing the protections we have put in place for the working poor and people who fall on hard times

I would say take away the barriers to growth. Patent law, drug law, copyright law are just a few. Allow those laws that create a societal benefit. And end the idea of corporate welfare, which is what is currently keeping zombified large businesses in the hands of stockholders instead of people.

I just don't see it being a wise move to remove the governments ability to support the people who lose when their loss is what allows others to win.

Okay, but when the regulation is run by those that are regulated, that's where the problems increase ten fold.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"You have a personal responsibility to save for retirement. You should not be able to retire on the backs of the working class."

Sure, but the working class often doesn't make enough money to retire. So you are saying work till you die? There are tons of low wage employees that companies profit from who will never make enough money to retire on without social security and medicare.

"You have a personal responsibility to ensure you are healthy and medical bills are covered."

Sure but accidents are not something you can ensure against. Some people can't get a full-time job so work two part time jobs that don't offer insurance. If they are struck by a drunk driver they are just fucked. Even people with insurance can have illness that will bankrupt them.

"You have a personal responsibility to ensure that you have skills that employers need in order to get a job. No one is responsible for your employment but you"

Sure but we have 14 million unemployed currently. I doubt all of those people are just unskilled and lazy. For a system to have winners it must have losers. The animal kingdom eats the losers is humanity any better than that?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Should humanity be any better than that?

There should be severe consequences for your choices in life.

If you choose to create a society where all people contribute to a common health system made by citizens, administered by citizens and watched by the government I don't see why there should be a problem, only if you choose not to work or contribute to that end and so you should not rip any and I mean let the guy die without assistance, it is harsh, but without the bad there is no incentives to do something about it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

All systems have winners and losers. If you remove the social safety nets that help people when they lose you wont be getting rid of losers only punishing them for playing and damning them to a life of losing. Losers with no support from society at large will create a cycle of losers. Poor people will have poor kids which will have a worse education because they are poor and can't afford a good one. The poor uneducated kids will grow up into poor unskilled workers, they will bust their ass making other people money and will die poor and miserable. Repeat forever. If you remove any system designed to help people improve their lot you will create a trap they can never climb out of.

Some people are born poor some people are unlucky. We shouldn't cast them out to the wolves because of this. It's not just a lack personal responsibly that can get you in a bad place in life. Life is tough and I think part of what being human is about is helping others through the tough parts, not condemning them to a life of misery.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

That's a common misconception but libertarianism is absolutely not 'anarchy' and it's certainly not 'government for the highest bidder' that the phrase 'anarchy for rich people' implies (that's actually the opposite of libertarian). In truth a libertarian government must be quite strong and pervasive to ensure individual liberty is maintained. In truth a libertarian government's first mandate would be shielding individuals from uses of wealth that defraud others of their rights. Calling in examples of regulatory lapses from our current market ecosystem is actually a strong argument in favor of libertarianism, not against, because they are excellent examples of how well meaning regulations can be twisted to serve the forces they were intended to curtail through regulatory capture.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"The U.S. Libertarian party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence"

From wiki.

From my understanding libertarians want little to no regulation on businesses and the market. Are you saying that the companies that abuse and circumvent current regulation would act better if there were no regulations? Sure some regulations are twisted to give companies an unfair advantage but if you allowed them to do whatever they want to the environment and their workers do you think that would turn out better for the lower classes and the planet or better for the owners at the detriment of the first two?

Re: Re: Re:

It is supposed to be allowed to be run into a ditch. That is what economics is about. You let the market free rise/fall as the consumer decides what things are worth. If you can't compete with a lower price, change markets. This is the only way you get a viable economy. As soon as you start changing the rules for some of the players, you lopside the system making it near impossible for it to regulate correctly.

An Open Market (the one the U.S. is supposed to have) requires that some people loose money drastically every once in a while because some one else think of a better way. Extending copyright/trademarks/patents only does damage to those who wish break into the market as almost everything is just a rehash of something else with some tweaks to make it a better/worse user experience.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Extending copyright/trademarks/patents only does damage to those who wish break into the market

Not true. Separating out trademarks (which are very different than copyrights & patents in scope and purpose), it damages society at large by eliminating the very concept of a common culture. It also represents fraud, as copyrights and patents were a two-way deal: a temporary artificial monopoly in exchange for the public at large gaining ownership when it ends. If it never ends, or if the term is unconscionable (my opinion is that any term that extends beyond the life of the creator qualifies), then the deal has been broken and it becomes fraud. Or, in the inaccurate parlance of our times, theft.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Very true. To bring in the Libertarian discussion from above, a Libertarian take on Copyrights and Patents is one that adheres to the Constitution. Copyrights and patents would be implemented in a way that "promotes the science and useful arts". Life+70 years does not promote anything. Anything beyond the life of the creator is not promoting the artist or sciences.

A true Constitutional Copyright is one that expires while the artist still has time to create more. The idea behind an expiration on a copyright is that the creator has a time when they can expect to lose their residual income and must create more in order to keep that income.

In exchange for the window of opportunity, the public gets complete control of the work after the expiration.

Under our current copyright, that whole system is thrown out the window.

On the patent front, a Libertarian version would probably not change much, but there would be regular reviews to determine if progress is being promoted in the sciences, which it clearly is not. So changes would be made.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Small note: Sweden once did away with its patent system and innovations flourished. If you can, look at "Rethinking IP Completely." It's a talk from Stephen Kinsella who is an admitted Anarcho-Libertarian.

Re:

Re:

"You are fully aware that their own emails prove it."

They have emails that say they are aware infringement exists on the system and there is really nothing they can do about. That is not really the same thing as needing it to exist to be successful is it? They just realized it was inevitable and there is no way for them to monitor and check the ridiculous amount of uploaded footage that gets submitted every hour.

"You are fully aware that this bill will not shut down YouTube."

I could very well be used to shut down other up and coming websites. The Viacom lawsuit proved that these companies are not above uploading their own content and then reporting the website for having their content. This act will give huge companies another way to legally stifle competition. If a business that does not really on infringement gets accused of infringement and they don't have money and/or time to defend themselves and get their domain back they are just done.

"You are a slimy liar"

funny since you lie about the youtube thing. Well i guess you only greatly misconstue and exaggerate it. My question is are you blind do the damage this bill can cause or do you not care because you will benefit so fuck everyone but you.

Re: Re: Re:

How did i demonstrate it?

You said youtube "depended on infringement." While the emails simply say they are aware infringement exists and don't know how to stop it. There is a difference between depending on something and being aware of something. You know you are misconstruing the nature of the emails, which is tantamount to lying.

Re: Re:

Well I guess you greatly misconstrue and exaggerate any issues with this bill. My question is: Are you blind to the damage piracy has caused for over a decade or do you not care because you will benefit so fuck everyone but you?

There, fixed that for you to reflect the real issue and a college education.

Re: Re: Re:

I am aware of the much debated issues with piracy yes. Lets take for granted that piracy is evil and nothing but. This bill will not stop piracy, its naive to think so. This bill does give a lot of power to legacy industries that will allow them to destroy legitimate legal business threats.

Passing a law that will have minimal effects on piracy for a short period of time while granting all kinds of new power to the government and those that have the largest piles of money for ever is not an equal or worthy trade-off.

Re: Re: Re:

That piracy has not caused damage is the issue. There are zero metrics to support said position. Perhaps you will figure it out when the government is camped out your lawn. Did the VCR wreck the movie industry. Clearly, the answer is no.

Re:

Politics

I think the Representitives posistion on Net Neutrality was more of a political stance than of actual factual reasoning. Sure she was mostly correct and I agree that the Obama administration oversteped in that case, but really I think it was just another case of Republican's continual chant of "No!" to anything that Obama proposes. But for Protect-IP she got her orders from the lobbyist, and she simply cannot make the connection between what she says in opposistion for one program can be used for opposistion to her own bill.

Re: Re:

Well it's my understanding that "Big Search" only shows people where stuff is on the internet. They don't have the stuff themselves. It's the websites with the stuff that is the problem, not the search engine.

Now, if you're talking about Youtube (because it's owned by Big Search) then it's the people that upload the videos, which may or may not be infringing - Youtube can't tell, only the copyright owner can tell. And Youtube never promised the uploader that it would share revenue (well it didn't used to) unlike the record label contract.

Re: Re: Re:

Big Search loves to make money on the ads. It's happy to let other people (1) take the rap for infringement or (2) do the hard work of creating the content in the first place as long as it gets to keep the ad revenue.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

One would think that if that technology actually exists and is as foolproof as you claim it is, that it would be employed by the countless court cases where parties spend years fighting over what's infringing and what isn't. All the court would have to do is run the algorithm and rule according to whatever it spits out. No?

Otherwise, you're left in the uncomfortable position of having to explain why YouTube is supposed to be able to tell infringement at a glance, when it takes actual litigants, teams of experts and the entire federal judiciary years to come up the answers.

Re: Re: Re:

> Well it's my understanding that "Big Search"
> only shows people where stuff is on the
> internet. They don't have the stuff themselves.
> It's the websites with the stuff that is the
> problem, not the search engine.

Exactly. This idea that search engines are responsible for the content of the internet is idiotic.

It's like holding Rand McNally responsible for illegal drug sales in L.A. because they made a map that shows people how to get to Inglewood.

Re: Re: Re:

Well, it has become fashionable to turn whatever large, monopolistic entity you disagree with into "BIG ___".

Big Oil
Big Content
Big Pharma
Big Government
Big Mac

I guess I can see where Google's dominance could earn them the monniker, but then again, the title is starting to lose it's meaning to me. The fact that any goof can add Big to the front of something to try and worry me is the kind of FUD that caused me to lose respect for FUD.

Re: Re: Court System

Believe it or not, all law is nothing more than "a silly game of semantics."

Sadly, your friendly local oligarchy police/nanny state WILL violently enforce aforementioned silly semantics upon you.
Thus, it becomes important to your healthy life & limb to be concerned over silly semantics.

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

How does it regulate the internet? By stopping criminal acts? By making it harder for offshore entities to profit from the US market? By making it harder for those who violate copyright as part of their business plan to operate in or market to the US surfer?

I don't think that is regulating the internet - I just think that is applying the laws as they should have been a long time ago.

Re: Re: Re:

How does it stop anything without regulating? Are you sure you know what the word means?

reg·u·late
verb /ˈregyəˌlāt/

Control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations
- the organization that regulates fishing in the region

How is it possible to stop criminal acts (even if one assumes it will which is very much in doubt) without "control or supervision?" How is it possible to make it harder for any entity to profit from the US market or violate copyright as part of their business plan while operating in or market to the US surfer without "control or supervision?"

Apply laws is regulation. That's what the word means. And if this were just about applying laws that current exist in ways they had not been before it would be a simple mater to change the enforcement policy, no new law would be required. This is about a change in the law, this is about taking things as they are now and not only changing what they are but changing the way we change them. It's absolutely not applying existing law to a new situation, that's already been done. We wouldn't need a new law for that.

Re: No contradiction: Net Neutrality* was against corporate interests.

Net Neutrality has been a look at the wrong issues anyway.

If we had more competition in broadband instead of AT&T versus TWC for their duopoly, they wouldn't NEED to be regulated. If someone doesn't like them, there would be other competitors. The market would regulate itself.

Re: Re: No contradiction: Net Neutrality* was against corporate interests.

The market would regulate itself.

Just curious, when has this ever happened? I hear this sentiment a lot, but have never seen an example of it working.

What I have seen is that every time a market is deregulated, whether there's a lot of competition or not, two things happen: the market consolidates to a few big players, those players engage in terrible abuses of the public.

I'm not trolling here, I honestly would love to see examples of deregulation resulting in something better.

Just curious, when has there ever been a free-market? I hear this sentiment a lot, but have never seen an example of it existing.

Deregulation is not the same thing as a free-market. The word, by its very nature, implies moving from regulation to not regulation. This is not a free market movement since in a free market it would never happen. Furthermore the common political usage of 'deregulation' is actually for scenarios of regulatory capture more often than not. Rarely does it actually mean a movement toward actually freer markets.

Let's take the context of broadband. With the FCC regulating, they're enforcing laws that support a duopoly. If the market were actually competitive, most people would be using the lines as a common resource, offering broadband at cheaper prices because they can compete with AT&T's pricing and national influence. This keeps regulation in check because if AT&T started trying to spy on people, they could, but people would move to smaller channels or other national channels that wouldn't want those type of deals.

If you notice, the deregulation is a misnomer which allows for strict rules on newcomers while the ones near the top gain added benefits. Whether that's tax loopholes, choice of competitors or what have you, it's not actual "deregulation" where the government stops trying to enforce laws. They just pick who to stop regulating.

Re: No contradiction: Net Neutrality* was against corporate interests.

You think that Big Search, Big Hardware, and Big Piracy are just a bunch of down-on-their-luck tent dwellers? Nope. They're multi-billion dollar companies filled with 1%ers and they desperately want to keep the revenue flowing to their pockets. They have no intention of sharing anything but a few crumbs with the 99%ers.

Copyright used to be between companies, but in the last decade or so, RIAA MPAA and the likes have brought that fight to the public's doorstep. Essentially saying: "all our customers are potential infringers, we must squash that by criminalizing 100% of the population" and the politicians have bought that fucking crap. Hook, line and sinker.

Re: Ugh...

Lobo, in fairness, some of the current crop of ACs can be attributed to regular posters (and even contributors) who have stopped posting under their name and instead insist on trying to demean the anonymous posters by being truly rude and out of bounds.

You need to address them directly to resolve the issue. It won't go away otherwise. The regular AC crowd isn't off the charts, just the collection of turkeys trying to play "troll the people I disagree with".

Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...

You have to be kidding, right? How many articles on Techdirt on this issue in the last 7 days? Mike is all the way down now to attacking the bill's sponsors on a personal level. I am shocked there has been nothing about one or the other of them beating their dog or something. It's an incredible show of desperation and stupidity, watching Mike try to spin hard and tilt at this windmill.

Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...

Trolling, as used in this case, is to show an action. This makes the context "to troll", a verb. It means you can go elsewhere for the ad hom attacks that add nothing to the conversation. Further, you have used a baseless attack merely to launch into a derogatory statement on others (namely Mike). So while I have not called you a troll, your actions speak otherwise.

If you can attack the argument, feel free. But spouting off about the problems of this bill, where the elements such as the Congress' past thoughts on this bill, the bill itself, and the economic effects are indeed relevant to the conversation. Shooting the messenger because he points out these problems is not.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...

"Shooting the messenger because he points out these problems is not."

What I don't get is that you wrote that, ignoring completely that this post about Rep. Blackburn is nothing more than a hit piece, designed to try to attack the Representative on a personal level. It doesn't address the content of the bill, it attacks her record.

Isn't that the ultimate in shooting the messenger, rather than addressing the issues?

"Trolling, as used in this case, is to show an action. This makes the context "to troll", a verb. It means you can go elsewhere for the ad hom attacks that add nothing to the conversation. Further, you have used a baseless attack merely to launch into a derogatory statement on others (namely Mike). So while I have not called you a troll, your actions speak otherwise."

All this to name call me. Do you write this stuff with a straight face? It's clear that you are unable to even follow your own guidelines.

As for Mike's actions, I will let his posts speak for him. This is the second hit piece on a bill sponsor, and that pretty much shows that he is no longer debating issues, and rather has sunk down to the muck slinging level of politics that he purports to dislike.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...

Yeah... her public voting record and her public position on previous political issues pursuant to her role as a public representative is not 'on a personal level.' Her voting record is very much part of her professional life, her profession being politician, not her personal life. Do you write this stuff with a straight face?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...

I wish I could type more slowly, so you might understand.

When you attack someone's voting record or public statements on related or even unrelated issues, you are not longer discussing the bill at hand. You are trying to discredit the person sponsoring the bill, rather than debating it's content.

That is a personal attack.

Now, it may be "par for the course" in American politics, but it is still sort of silly. It stops the debate about the issue at hand, and shifts the debate to the person proposing the law. That makes it personal, and that is never very good.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...

The RIAA made it personal with their member groups respective cultural theft. They cemented that with their stealing of many millions of dollars for the CEOs' respective "expenses" and "donations" to Congresscritters and Senators.

They can't innovate, so they legislate. And the fact that you don't see that as a problem is...saddening.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...

What I don't get is that you wrote that, ignoring completely that this post about Rep. Blackburn is nothing more than a hit piece, designed to try to attack the Representative on a personal level. It doesn't address the content of the bill, it attacks her record.

... Where she advocates from injunctive relief by using Youtube for her message. And yet her platform (in this case, Youtube) would be taken away based on the bill she's sponsoring. I guess the hypocrisy of her stance is lost on you in your attack on Mike. Funny, I don't see Mike going to the lengths of political pundits in saying she's a "hippie, no good dirty Republican, who likes her guitar from the South." I see he wrote explicitly she doesn't understand what she's co-sponsoring:

That said, what her comments apply much more to is the bill that Blackburn herself co-sponsored, which definitively regulates the internet -- including YouTube, Facebook and Twitter -- by putting a massive burden on them to proactively monitor the internet, to stop infringement.

All this to name call me. Do you write this stuff with a straight face? It's clear that you are unable to even follow your own guidelines.

Obviously, actions speak louder than words. It seems you've denigrated yourself to trying for attacks on others. Try harder to keep up with the argument.

This is the second hit piece on a bill sponsor, and that pretty much shows that he is no longer debating issues, and rather has sunk down to the muck slinging level of politics that he purports to dislike.

I'd probably say it's more muckraking since you've yet to answer why you use personal attacks. How she can argue for one regulatory process over another is quite unclear. That reeks of hypocrisy. How or why you fail to see that is entirely up to you.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...

> It doesn't address the content of the bill,
> it attacks her record.

You apparently have a different definition of "personal attack" than the rest of the English-speaking world.

Exmining, commenting on, and criticizing a politician's public voting record is not only NOT a personal attack, it's an expected and necessary part of the democratic process. The Founders even enshrined it in the Bill of Rights as one of the basic guaranteed rights of the people vis a vis their government.

Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...

"Criticizing an elected official by pointing out that their policies and voting records are hypocritical is not a personal attack."

It is. Mike is attacking the person's credibility, and attempting to sling mud on them. He did the same for another Bill sponsor yesterday. It's not about debating the merits of the act, but rather to try to drown out the discussion with non-productive muck.

Mike's comments add nothing to the debate about the content of the bill, but do clearly go to attack the bill sponsor. If you cannot see that this is an attack, well, I feel sorry for you.

With all of these hit pieces, don't you think Mike is trying very hard to spin this?

she probably went to lunch with Rep. Lamar Smith and agreed to co-sponsor just to

a)keep him quiet
b)make sure he paid the bill
c)needed some more campaign funds
d)had forgotten about the youtube video
e)hoped everyone else had forgotten about it/hadn't seen it
f)been threatened with copyright infringement for that video unless she backed the Bill

Mike slips in a telling phrase: "ad providers".

We're all so grateful to "ad providers". Apparently he considered "advertisers" as tainted. No, instead his slant is that they're "providing" for us. Well, as I've said before, I think advertising is on the way out because people can now avoid it.

But on topic: Mike writes: "Amusingly, this very video is on YouTube, via Rep. Blackburn's official account. If this bill that Blackburn is co-sponsoring was in place as law just a few years ago, it's extremely unlikely we would have YouTube still in existence today."

Mike tacitly admits that Youtube primarily relies on ripping off copyrighted content, not original works, else how would they be affected? As for a comment above that Youtube couldn't possibly check all the content pouring in: that's a basic flaw with Youtube's premise, NOT with copyright as such. If a "business model" relies on hosting infringing content, then that business should NOT be allowed. Shouldn't need a "safe harbor" when the most casual glance shows that it's a pirate boat, Jolly Roger flying.

Re: Mike slips in a telling phrase: "ad providers".

"Youtube primarily relies on ripping off copyrighted content, not original works, else how would they be affected?" "Shouldn't need a "safe harbor" when the most casual glance shows that it's a pirate boat, Jolly Roger flying."

Perhaps you should actually try taking a casual glance sometime. The majority of videos on youtube has little to nothing to do with copyrighted content from the media corps. Hell, I'd call most of it mindless dribble that isn't even worth the server space, but yet that doesn't stop people from posting their stupidity for the world to see. It's a still a free country, so I don't see why people like you shouldn't be free to dribble whatever they want.

Re: Re: Re: Mike slips in a telling phrase: "ad providers".

could u please tell me how any of these examples cause harm to the creator? Or where these are not examples of fair use? be specific please.. Do you think any of these people belong in jail? I mean do you really think the house lighting thing was NOT cool? Cmon .. your examples are examples of what is GOOD about U tube...

Re: Mike slips in a telling phrase: "ad providers".

"As for a comment above that Youtube couldn't possibly check all the content pouring in: that's a basic flaw with Youtube's premise, NOT with copyright as such."

Infringement is no doubt one of the problems a service such as YouTube must deal with, but the problem of having to "check all the content pouring in" is not a flaw in "YouTube's premise" any more than it's a flaw in the premise of a free society for some of its members to abuse those freedoms. Are you the sort of person who would destroy free society as a means of preventing abuse?

If a "business model" relies on hosting infringing content, then that business should NOT be allowed.

YouTube's business model does not rely on hosting infringing content. YouTube should be allowed.

Shouldn't need a "safe harbor" when the most casual glance shows that it's a pirate boat, Jolly Roger flying."

Re: Re: Mike slips in a telling phrase: "ad providers".

I should have said that 'the problem of not being able to "check all the content pouring in" is not a flaw in "YouTube's premise" any more than not being able to stop abuses of social freedoms is a flaw in the premise of a free society.'

Re: Mike slips in a telling phrase: "ad providers".

Mike tacitly admits that Youtube primarily relies on ripping off copyrighted content, not original works, else how would they be affected?

He admits no such thing, tacitly or otherwise. YouTube would be affected because the bill allows for private action against it (and everyone else) based on nothing more than the say-so of the complainer. Do you really thing that corporations and people will only act on that power in good faith?

Without a safe harbor, it becomes effectively impossible to allow any user-generated content unless your service has very few people using it. It kills an enormous part of what makes the internet useful, not just for entertainment but for serious uses.

If copyright and user-generated content really can't coexist (and I think they can), then I vote to get rid of copyright. Copyright does not embody any natural right that I can see, and they way it is being used these days it is actively working against things which are of enormous value.

The problem with this bill has nothing to do with infringement. It has everything to do with freedom.

In perspective...

It all makes perfect sense, if you merely put it in the conservative perspective. She's obviously against net neutrality regulation of ISPs, because she supports their monopoly control of their property and uninhibited draconian rule for the pursuit of profit. You know, because the "invisible hand" will just magically fix the "free market" if corporations ever get out of hand--as if they can't just keep using their profits to collude, subjugate, or kill the competition. She also supports media industry legislation because...she supports their monopoly control of their property and uninhibited draconian rule for the pursuit of profit. It's the same reason they hate "climate change", environmental regulations, finance reform, patent reform, etc. Yet, despite all the rhetoric, they fully support government regulations and enforcement, just as long as it supports their monopoly control of their property and uninhibited draconian rule for the pursuit of profit.

What the...?

I'm looking through her profile. I'm amazed on this video how she discusses the Gibson raid through her promotion of the RELIEF act. Here is the video. Her advocacy for E-PARASITE makes NO sense! She wants to take away regulations for imported wood, but tax the internet?

The fact is that politicians love to criticize ACTA when they're in Congress and in a position to do little about it. Even Parliament does the same thing. They love to talk about how they don't want to further regulate the Internet when they are not in a position to regulate it. They do all this to get votes and public support for themselves. Why? because they know that the general public doesn't want stricter IP laws. They know that the general public doesn't want further IP expansions or any related expansions that further regulate the Internet. They won't get elected and they and their party won't get public support if they went in with the claim "I'm going to expand IP law". No one would vote for them. I even remember Obama, in his early days, was discussing shortening patent length. It's a good political pitch that will help grab more votes and gain public support. He knows darn well that the people do not want patents to last as long as they do and that the general public wants their scope reduced, and if he ran for president saying "I'm going to stop piracy, I'm going to expand patent law, I'm going to enforce IP law, etc..." that would be a very sure way to lose the election. I have never seen a politician publicly run for office under those pretexts (of expanding or further enforcing IP) and there is very good reason why. They know darn well that this is a sure way to lose an election because the people do not want these laws. Look at all of those running for election. Why doesn't any of them say "Gee, if I get elected, I will further expand IP law". Even Michele Bachmann criticized Protect IP. She knows darn well that the American people do not want these laws and that supporting them is a sure way to lose an election. Can someone give me an example of a politician publicly using IP as an election point? Doubtful. They'll find some other points to make because supporting IP is a sure way to lose an election and they know it.

Only after politicians get elected or after they are in a position to support that which they were previously against will they support it.

Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 28th, 2011 @ 2:20pm

Marsha Hates Freedom?

Why does Marsha Want Congress to Regulate the Internet? Why not just say NO FEDERAL branch (the FCC and congress and the federal courts included) has any authority to decide or rule on any aspect concerning the Internet?

Re: Marsha Hates Freedom?

censorship

Some countries simply block entire sites... e.g. youtube, facebook etc however some regulation is good because arguably facebook has too many rights and far too much power (through the sheer amount of info that it stores on each individual)

hero of the stupid

S.978

If Congress wants to "regulate" the internet, then that means they will "force" the lower monthly charges for accessing it since they seem to want people to pay additionally for what they listen to or watch online that they we are paying phenominal monthly fees on. right?

Writing to Rep Blackburn

Unfortunately, Ms Blackburn only allows email to be sent from her constituents. You have to provide a zip code within her district to gain any access. So use 38372 if you REALLY want to let this woman know how truly stupid you think she is

Keep gov out of the web

I didn't take the time to read the details of this so correct me if I am wrong, I was extending my Google plus friend network when I found this article and it said that the public official flipped her view on keeping the government from policing the internet. (And sucking the life out of it, just like regulation and laws on laws to protect the right to suck the life out of people who want to work and innovate,has killed the California economy!)So I hope that I misunderstood and miss politics has not decided to welcome the government in to ruin the one hope that America still has of generating income, without that income coming from those who still think of work as a good thing. One sure way to ruin the slim chance of making a true solid income from the internet is to add the government to the mix. Google keeps the internet sane by forcing relevancy and government is not in the business of relevancy.